Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chat Control Must Be Stopped

privacyguides.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 272 posts

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#261

Post by port11 »

mbrochh wrote: post #212
port11 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with most reasons others have pointed out (fatigue, lack of good journalism, deplatforming, alienation…). Another one: it's holiday season, a clever time to get things through. Another one: most EU parties stand for it, even my usual go-tos, namely Greens, S&D, and The Left.

Time consider your party affiliation then.

I'd love to, but we're very limited right now. The right-wingers aren't exactly against Chat Control either; or some are but also voted against very good legislation. The EPP is so corrupt it makes the Balkans seem clean. What's left? I'm not a single-issue voter.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#262

Post by cphoover »

I'm no expert but to me, what's particularly silly about "breaking encryption" is it does nothing to prevent using user agents from employing their own encryption layers over other messaging system like gpg/pgp or others. So this does nothing to stop someone who is intent on hiding illegal content and it decreases security and privacy for the average user.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#263

Post by didibus »

stephen_g wrote: post #217
didibus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is that the EU believes to do these things above corruption. In a sense, if you think you are upholding human rights, free speech, and personal privacy, you don't think it is required to offer people ways to hide from the government. The government thinks the rule of law itself is good enough. Even if they are aware of your speech and it criticizes or shock or whatever the currently elected, they be…

The problem with that framework is that even if you believe the EU Governments are the "good guys", it's not going to be just them who get access to the data. It opens it up potentially to anyone with the means to infiltrate these systems - rogue employees of the companies running the messaging and cloud services, cyber criminals who will be able to hack into them, foreign states who will be able to hack it (we very…

That's a good point, and I'd assume it comes down to what people consider the least of two evils, possible corporate espionage or maybe blackmail, versus CSAM (assuming you believe monitoring for CSAM will help reduce it).

I was more trying to frame the perspective I think in which these proposals are made. As I think it explains a bit why for some this seems ludicrous while for others it seems a reasonable proposal worth considering.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#264

Post by pas »

varispeed wrote: post #92
pas wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ridiculously different, there's no single person or country that can do anything like that there are multiple ways to make EU law, there are regulations (that apply directly) and directives that member states need to implement (basically ratify) the Commission proposed something and then the Council votes on it and then there's the EP which votes on it this one is a regulation proposal https://en.m.wikipedia.org…

Why this even got to a stage of being official? It's something a Nazi regime would implement today had it existed. There is no one in the EU that would tell those people are you fkin insane and give them a sack?

because we still live in the shadows of those times, unfortunately.

there is at least one very bad quasi-dictatorship in the EU, Hungary, where "protecting the children" is used as the perfect propaganda slogen, but when it comes to holding abusers accountable, things are 240% farcical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalin_Nov%C3%A1k_presidentia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%A1bor_Kaleta...

and of course Hungary supports this. who would have thought.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#265

Post by BrenBarn »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #252
BrenBarn wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you got rid of the +2 electoral college votes for each state independent of its population, votes in Arizona would still matter more than California. There's a bit more to it than the +2 electoral votes from the senate, because even within the House the representations are skewed due to the strange decision to cap the size of the House at 435 seats while guaranteeing each state at least one seat. Thus California…

> There's a bit more to it than the +2 electoral votes from the senate, because even within the House the representations are skewed due to the strange decision to cap the size of the House at 435 seats while guaranteeing each state at least one seat. Capping the number of seats is dumb but the way they're apportioned doesn't give any major advantage to small states because the size of the average district and the si…

Those are interesting ideas. I still tend to think though that such fiddling is only necessary if we insist on single-member districts with first-past-the-post systems. A proportional system essentially forces each party to pay attention everywhere because every vote everywhere counts. Having districts where the overall result is an aggregate of mini-elections in each district encourages various forms of gaming the system (like gerrymandering). The states themselves are another case of such districts.

I'm increasingly skeptical of the idea that the composition of government organs whose authority extends over a large jurisdiction should be determined by mini-elections in sub-jurisdictions. It makes sense to have sub-jurisdictions insofar as they can set local policy, but if a legislative body is going to make laws for the whole US it should, as a whole, be accountable to the whole US. Especially in the modern age, the relevant constituencies are defined as much by beliefs as by geographical location.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#266

Post by AnthonyMouse »

BrenBarn wrote: post #265
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a bit more to it than the +2 electoral votes from the senate, because even within the House the representations are skewed due to the strange decision to cap the size of the House at 435 seats while guaranteeing each state at least one seat. Capping the number of seats is dumb but the way they're apportioned doesn't give any major advantage to small states because the size of the average district and the si…

Those are interesting ideas. I still tend to think though that such fiddling is only necessary if we insist on single-member districts with first-past-the-post systems. A proportional system essentially forces each party to pay attention everywhere because every vote everywhere counts. Having districts where the overall result is an aggregate of mini-elections in each district encourages various forms of gaming the s…

> I still tend to think though that such fiddling is only necessary if we insist on single-member districts with first-past-the-post systems.

You can solve this using a cardinal voting system (e.g. STAR voting) even with single member districts, because FPTP is what produces a two-party system and if there are multiple parties then there are no safe seats because e.g. a left-leaning district would still have a race between the Democrats and the Green Party.

Which also thwarts gerrymandering because if an extremist party draws the lines to try to give themselves more seats, they dilute their base and lose them all to a moderate party, but if they try to concentrate their base they don't get many seats.

And you can also implement that in the US without major constitutional changes.

> It makes sense to have sub-jurisdictions insofar as they can set local policy, but if a legislative body is going to make laws for the whole US it should, as a whole, be accountable to the whole US.

The premise of this stuff is supposed to be checks and balances. Single member districts in the House would be fine if we used STAR/score/approval voting instead of FPTP.

The original purpose of the Senate was to represent the states in the federal government; Senators were originally elected by state legislatures. The idea being that the state legislators would send people inclined to temper populist federal overreach. And it worked pretty well until the people who wanted to do a big round of populist federal overreach changed it to cause Senators to be directly elected.

And that's what messed up the US Presidency. The original design was to have an extremely limited federal government and have the states do most everything, and then if the federal government doesn't do much, having only a single elected position in the executive branch makes sense. Meanwhile states have elected positions for everything from sheriffs to comptrollers to dogcatchers. There wasn't supposed to be a federal-level SEC or FDA -- that's state stuff -- so the US Constitution doesn't establish any elected position to be the head of it even though there ought to be if it's going to exist.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#267

Post by BrenBarn »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #266
BrenBarn wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are interesting ideas. I still tend to think though that such fiddling is only necessary if we insist on single-member districts with first-past-the-post systems. A proportional system essentially forces each party to pay attention everywhere because every vote everywhere counts. Having districts where the overall result is an aggregate of mini-elections in each district encourages various forms of gaming the s…

> I still tend to think though that such fiddling is only necessary if we insist on single-member districts with first-past-the-post systems. You can solve this using a cardinal voting system (e.g. STAR voting) even with single member districts, because FPTP is what produces a two-party system and if there are multiple parties then there are no safe seats because e.g. a left-leaning district would still have a race b…

> And you can also implement that in the US without major constitutional changes.

In theory yes, but in practice I think we cannot. That is, the system you describe is allowable under the current constitution, but the path to realize it is not achievable under the current constitution, because the current constitution has led us into a dead-end which I don't think can be unblocked without wholesale reform.

> The original purpose of the Senate was to represent the states in the federal government

That was a bad idea. There is no reason for organs of government to be represented in other organs of government. That is the dead-end we've gotten into now, because the constitution does not actually give anyone any full-fledged rights (only restrictions on government action) and instead sets up a procedural game which has now reached a stable stalemate end-state characterized by gerrymandering, corporate money, etc. There is no way out because the constitution, in all its checks and balances, provides no direct mechanism for the citizenry to check or balance the legislature. This has enabled the creation of a nonrepresentative government with no way out.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#268

Post by AnthonyMouse »

BrenBarn wrote: post #267
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still tend to think though that such fiddling is only necessary if we insist on single-member districts with first-past-the-post systems. You can solve this using a cardinal voting system (e.g. STAR voting) even with single member districts, because FPTP is what produces a two-party system and if there are multiple parties then there are no safe seats because e.g. a left-leaning district would still have a race b…

> And you can also implement that in the US without major constitutional changes. In theory yes, but in practice I think we cannot. That is, the system you describe is allowable under the current constitution, but the path to realize it is not achievable under the current constitution, because the current constitution has led us into a dead-end which I don't think can be unblocked without wholesale reform. > The orig…

> That is, the system you describe is allowable under the current constitution, but the path to realize it is not achievable under the current constitution, because the current constitution has led us into a dead-end which I don't think can be unblocked without wholesale reform.

The change to STAR is something the states can do themselves and some states -- notably California with its large population -- have referendums. Put it on the ballot until it passes.

> There is no reason for organs of government to be represented in other organs of government.

Well sure there is. Elected officials are subject to the principal-agent problem, but different agents have different sets of misaligned incentives. Notably each one will try to usurp the intended powers of the others. And if you don't want the federal legislature to usurp the role of the state legislatures then you give the state legislatures representation in the federal one.

> There is no way out because the constitution, in all its checks and balances, provides no direct mechanism for the citizenry to check or balance the legislature.

I mean, you're supposed to vote the bums out.

The real enemy here is partisanship. Forget about the parties, vote against the incumbents until someone runs a candidate willing to actually fix it.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#269

Post by BrenBarn »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #268
BrenBarn wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And you can also implement that in the US without major constitutional changes. In theory yes, but in practice I think we cannot. That is, the system you describe is allowable under the current constitution, but the path to realize it is not achievable under the current constitution, because the current constitution has led us into a dead-end which I don't think can be unblocked without wholesale reform. > The orig…

> That is, the system you describe is allowable under the current constitution, but the path to realize it is not achievable under the current constitution, because the current constitution has led us into a dead-end which I don't think can be unblocked without wholesale reform. The change to STAR is something the states can do themselves and some states -- notably California with its large population -- have referen…

> The change to STAR is something the states can do themselves and some states -- notably California with its large population -- have referendums. Put it on the ballot until it passes.

And then what? California already passed the citizen's redistricting thing to combat gerrymandering, and now it's being undone because it doesn't work (and in fact can be harmful) unless everyone does it. That's basically my point. Such reforms are ineffective unless they reach a tipping point, but the current system is designed mostly to preserve the status quo and prevent any such tipping point from being reached.

Re: Chat Control Must Be Stopped

#270

Post by Uupis »

Geezus_42 wrote: post #190
jonaharagon wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally. This is exactly the problem with things like Chat Control in the EU and KOSA in the US. They will just introduce the same bill over and over and over again until they get the desired result. What we need is for legislatures to pass "NO Chat Control" and "NO KOSA" bills that specifically block this behavior, but unsurprisingly governments don't seem to be too keen about limiting their own rights, only those o…

Attackers only need to win once. Defenders have to win every round.

I think I like this phrasing. Thank you!
Post reply on HN